Use of controlled vignettes in evaluation: Does type of response method make a difference?

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 313-322

  Gliner, Jeffrey A ^a   Haber, Elizabeth ^a   Weise, James ^a  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Business students; Cognitive disability; Occupational therapy students; Supported employment; Transition; Vignettes

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037519561     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0149-7189(99)00022-1     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bordieri, J. E., & Drehmer, D. E. (1986). Hiring decisions for disabled workers: looking at the cause. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 197-208.
2. Carifio, J., & Lanza, M. (1992). The need to use control vignettes in social science research. Work, 2, 28-38.
3. Drehmer, D. E., & Bordieri, J. E. (1985). Hiring decisions for disabled workers: the hidden bias. Rehabilitation Psychology, 30, 157-164.
4. Fox, J., & Stinnett, T. (1996). The effects of labeling bias on prognostic outlook for children as a function of diagnostic label and profession. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 143-152.
5. Gilfoyle, E., & Gliner, J. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped children: impact of an educational program. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 5, 27-41.
6. Gorman, C. D., Clover, W. H., & Doherty, M. E. (1978). Can we learn anything about interviewing real people from 'interviews' of paper people? Two studies of the external validity of a paradigm. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 165-192.
7. Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308.
8. Jochums, B. L., & Pershey, E. J. (1993). Using the vignette method in formative evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 14, 155-161.
9. Keenan, A. (1977). Some relationships between interviewers' personal feelings about candidates and their general evaluation of them. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50, 275-283.
10. Kerlinger, F. (1996). Foundations of behavioural research, (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
11. Kinicki, A., Hom, P., Trost, M., & Wade, K. (1995). Effects of category prototypes on performance-rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 354-370.
12. Krefting, L., & Brief, A. (1976). The impact of applicant disability on evaluative judgments in the selection process. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 675-680.
13. Lanza, M., & Carifio, J. (1992). Use of a panel of experts to establish validity for patient assault vignettes. Evaluation Review, 17, 82-92.
14. Murphy, K., Herr, B., Lockhart, M., & Maguire, E. (1986). Evaluating the performance of paper people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 654-661.
15. Rose, G., & Brief, A. (1979). Effects of handicap and job characteristics on selection evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 32, 385-392.
16. Stone, C., & Sawatzki, B. (1980). Hiring bias and the disabled interviewee: effects of manipulating work history and disability information of the disabled job applicant. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 96-104.
17. Threlkeld, R. M., & Dejong, W. (1983). Hiring the disabled: an attempt to influence behavioral intentions through a media presentation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 28(2), 105-114.